Biden’s bagmen and propagandists such as the DNC are currently pressuring SMS carriers to “dispel misinformation”. We now have the ruling party inserting itself into our private messages. So long free speech.

Yes, Big Brother has arrived. The Biden Administration will help us know the Truth (as well as being corrupt through and through).

When was the last time in history that a politician didn't LIE? When is Fauxcci going to be censored for his misinformation?

They're trying to take away our first amendment rights and they're claiming that the end justifies the means. — charles ferraro

The same document allows for it in cases of public health. If the censorship was effective I wouldn't keep hearing about censorship. Yet, it seems to get its ironic message across every hour of every day.

It does not matter if it is effective or not. What matters is the ethics and politics of the situation, whether the state should determine what can and cannot be said, and so on.

The same document allows for it in cases of public health. — Cheshire

Hmm. Much as I wish it were true, I'm not seeing it.

No one's opinions should be censored in our constitutional republic. PERIOD!!!!!!

They're trying to take away our first amendment rights and they're claiming that the end justifies the means. — charles ferraro

You're obviously just ranting and don't know what you're talking about. In a perfect world you would have the world that you want. I give you about five minutes in it.

Biden’s bagmen and propagandists such as the DNC are currently pressuring SMS carriers to “dispel misinformation” — NOS4A2

Links? Can you support this?

...all the usual suspects with their codified posts.

Meh.

Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

This is exactly what the Biden Administration, using the cover of the issue of Covid vaccination, is seeking to accomplish right now in the USA in intimate cooperation with the leadership and censorship activities of Facebook, Twitter, etc. — charles ferraro

What Psaki said today is very interesting and important. We keep hearing that Facebook and other social media companies can't be held liable for restrictions of free speech "because they're private companies." Nevermind that this is false; after all, southern lunch counters used to be able to discriminate against black customers until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 declared them to be "public accommodations," and legally bound by the 14th Amendment on equal protection. Likewise the phone company can't shut off your service because they don't like what you're saying on your calls, because they are legally defined as common carriers. In the end, an act of Congress will so label the social media companies and put an end to their rampant free speech suppression.

But what Psaki admitted today is that the government is pressuring Facebook to act as an agent of the government. In that case, there is legal precedent that Facebook is bound by the same Constitutional restrictions as the government is. The government can't hire a private company to restrict people's free speech rights, any more than the government can do so itself. By admitting that the government is telling Facebook to restrict the free speech of Americans, they put Facebook in legal jeopardy and give legal ammo to Trump's lawsuit against the social media companies.

Stay tuned. And remember the phrases public accommodation and common carrier, we'll be hearing more about them as the latest fight over free speech progresses.

Hm. I'm not too worried about unattributed accusations. Anything more concrete?

The dictum “they are private companies” holds true. When the government forces a company such as Facebook to operate in an approved manner, it violates their free speech.

On this issue I happen to agree. If Trump had moved to work with private companies to censor speech, liberals would have had cried and moaned like the little bitches they are. Yet somehow Biden, who is in every way as shit as Trump, in many way worse, does exactly this, suddenly it's OK. If these morons want a daddy who will tell them what they are allowed to access, they will get one.

Sure, perhaps he made it up.

Links? Can you support this? — Banno

You missed this story?

https://nypost.com/2021/07/12/dnc-biden-allies-want-phone-carriers-to-vet-anti-vax-messages/

http://www.gilmermirror.com/view/full_story/27810003/article-Biden-allied-groups--including-the-DNC--planning-to-work-with-SMS-carriers-to-police-text-messages-critical-of-vaccines?instance=news_special_coverage_right_column

If you Google around you'll find plenty of other links to the same story, in addition to a number of spin pieces frantically trying to deny it. But they said it. The DNC wants the phone carriers to police your private text messages.

SO do you folk agree that opposing the vaccine is a bad thing?

I mean, do oyu honestly think that folk ought not get vaccinated?

Why?

The dictum “they are private companies” holds true. When the government forces a company such as Facebook to operate in an approved manner, it violates their free speech. — NOS4A2

Do you disagree with calling privately owned lunch counters public accommodations in order to force them to serve black customers? They're private companies too, and before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was perfectly legal for them to discriminate on the basis of race.

SO do you folk agree that opposing the vaccine is a bad thing? — Banno

The subject is free speech. One can support X and still support the right of people to express opposition to X. When you support X and also support suppressing the free speech rights of people who disagree with you, that crosses a line to a very bad place that nobody wants to go.

I don’t think that. I just think that governments shouldn’t police someone’s speech and beliefs. Do you think they should?

Do you disagree with calling privately owned lunch counters public accommodations in order to force them to serve black customers? They're private companies too, and before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was perfectly legal for them to discriminate on the basis of race.

I do disagree.

You missed this story? — fishfry

Yeah. I'm not that interested in foreign affairs.

There's nothing very convncing there - jus tmore accusations. I suport this:

The pushback will include directly calling out social media platforms and conservative news shows

Looks good to me.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/07/16/biden-administration-completely-kills-the-its-a-private-company-so-its-not-censorship-argument/

"The most common argument you’ll hear from those who support monopolistic social media giants controlling speech on their platforms is that these are private corporations, not the government, so it doesn’t count as censorship. Whenever you object to Silicon Valley oligarchs exerting total control over the political speech of billions of people, mainstream liberals instantly transform into an army of Ayn Rands defending the private property rights of those companies. The fact that these platforms are inseparably interwoven with the highest branches of the US federal government kills such arguments stone dead.

In a corporatist system of government, where there is no separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship. The actual government as it actually exists is censoring the speech not just of its own people, but people around the world. If US law had placed as much emphasis on the separation of corporation and state as it had on the separation of church and state, the country would be unrecognizably different from what we see today.

Only infantile narcissists and power-worshipping bootlickers want the most powerful government on earth controlling what people are allowed to say to each other about a virus response which affects everybody, and only those with no sense of self-preservation entrust worldwide human speech to an alliance of government agencies and powerful tech plutocrats."

Do you think they should? — NOS4A2

Well, they do, just in virtue of having an opinion. Free speech is a fetish. Is it OK to spread falsehoods that undermine public health? I say no. I've no problem with that.

For the same enlightened reason that Kamala Harris did. Because it was Trump who facilitated development of the vaccine(s) and recommended taking them.

Way to miss the issue entirely.

I do disagree. — NOS4A2

I don't think anyone wants to live in a society where the government can't restrict the behavior of private companies. How about this example. Do you think the local board of health should be allowed to inspect privately-owned restaurants, and shut them down if they are operating in an unsafe or unclean manner?

For the same enlightened reason that Kamala Harris did. Because it was Trump who facilitated development of the vaccine(s) and recommended taking them. — charles ferraro

I've no way to make sense of this. Is it an attempt at irony? Perhaps I'm missing some background?

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/07/16/biden-administration-completely-kills-the-its-a-private-company-so-its-not-censorship-argument/ — StreetlightX

Caitlyn got that talking point from me :-)

Example of a new form of logic. It's called Democratic logic.

I, for one, don’t want to live in such a society. I believe giving the state such power has the corresponding effect of diminishing social power.

No one's opinions should be censored in our constitutional republic. PERIOD!!!!!! — charles ferraro

As if you have, or have ever had, any principle whatsoever. I think four years of Trump took away all doubt about the "integrity" of conservatives in this country. You're simply upset that Trump got booted from Twitter. Pretend to be outraged about "first amendment" issues, but it fools no one.

The social media platforms are major corporations. Corporations have far too much power in this country. Trump and the Republican Party gave them even greater power. Didn't seem to care about this issue back then, when handing out over a trillion in tax cuts. When it starts to effect them, suddenly they become trust-busters. So I laugh at your tears.

--

Opinions shouldn't be censored. These companies shouldn't have the monopolies they have, with zero regulation. They're also responsible for designing algorithms that accelerate dangerous disinformation. Now the government is asking them to better regulate themselves, as if this is the solution. It isn't.